Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus Re: Consensus? Question from the ICG

Jefsey <> Thu, 19 February 2015 20:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF4C81A8871 for <>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 12:02:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.231
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.231 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, MISSING_MID=0.497] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SBxQGIODlQra for <>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 12:02:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B27B21A8851 for <>; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 12:02:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]:13046 by with esmtpa (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <>) id 1YOXIt-0006Wr-2Q; Thu, 19 Feb 2015 12:02:31 -0800
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 21:02:17 +0100
To: Brian E Carpenter <>,
From: Jefsey <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id: user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Ianaplan] Consensus Re: Consensus? Question from the ICG
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IANA Plan <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 20:02:32 -0000
Message-ID: <>

At 20:33 19/02/2015, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>IANAL, but the formal beneficiary of the IETF Trust is the IETF. It's for
>the Trust to ask its own counsel whether this matters.
>That doesn't affect what this WG says, though

No, Brian. In this case this affects the interest for stability of 
the internet community. The IETF Turst is asked to accept a 
responsibility for all the users. Not to decide anything. I am not 
anymore considering my corporation and its users as bond by IETF 
technical decisions that have to be approved by the NTIA/FCC. 
However, it is of common interest for everyone that e-USA and 
e-Europe, e-Libre, as well as the other e-Global Communities go well 
together (cf. RFC 6852).

My point was only a point of internal consistency of the e-US 
Community, so it does not imballance the other communities. We have 
now to think in terms of our own WG-Draft. The IAB is no 
more the TCP/IP referent. It is for the NTIA/FCC led e-US Community 
the NTIA/FCC approved operator. I only hope we can manage to 
keep it consistent with its equivalent operators on behalf of the 
other communities.

The global community technology/names/numbers/parameters of the 
network of networks is the new concept affirmed on Jan 8, 2015. It is 
new, but it is fully consistant with the RFC 6852 modern paradigm. 
Howevern I am afraid this has not been made fully plained yet by our 
leaders. Hence my pending appeal.